Let's see, maybe when Andrew Jackson ended the national banking scheme. I can't think of another one.

You may be right.

I am continually amazed at the fear of elected officials to go against their "party". And, it seems this is more prevalent with the Republicans. What are they afraid uf? Being ostracized from the "club"? Are our politicians so removed from their constituants that they are no longer aware of what is happening "back home"? Are they more afraid of party censure than re-election?

Perhaps we need to rethink term limits for Congress.

You can see the reason in the way some revile Chuck Hagel for opposing Bush II's foreign policies and socialist programs.

Unfortunately, even though the Constitution gives the states full control over eligibility of candidates for federal legislature, the Supreme Court ruled that a Constitution Amendment is needed to place term limits on federal elected offices. I think California did vote in federal term limits, and that was the case the SCOTUS ruled on.

Re: What is to be gained by blocking debate?
 

Actually, as others have posted...it is the Democrats that are afraid of debate. Neal Boortz explains it quite well:
Now let's sit back a bit here and watch the media at work.

"Yesterday you saw headlines in newspapers and heard many TV talking heads telling you that the Republicans had blocked debate on an anti-war resolution in the U.S. Senate. But is this the way things really happened? Just where did the media get this story? Where did the mainstream media come up with the idea that the Republicans were trying to stop the debate?

Well .. it came from a vote. A cloture vote. Republicans refused to step forward and vote for the cloture motion, so it failed. But just what is a motion for cloture? Why, it's a motion to stop debate and vote on the issue in question! The issue in question here the Democrat non-binding resolution opposing Bush's moves in Iraq.

Are you following this? There's a debate going on in the Senate. The debate is over a Democrat-inspired resolution condemning George Bush and his latest actions in Iraq. The Democrats bring a motion to the floor to stop the debate and vote on the resolution. The Republicans vote against the motion. The debate goes on ... and suddenly the left-wing media is reporting that the Republicans are trying to block debate on the Iraq war in the Senate? On what level does this make sense?

If the situation were reversed and it was the Republicans bring a cloture motion to the floor of the Senate, with the Democrats opposing the motion, you can bet your first born that the mainstream leftist press would be blaming the Republicans for trying to stifle debate in the Senate.

The truth is that the Republicans have kept the debate going ... rather than blocking it. But Harry Reid gets up there and accuses of the Republicans of trying to block debate and the media grabs Reid's slant and runs with it. But what would you expect? Reid is the Democrat leader of the Senate! Do you really expect the media to do anything other than adopt his slant?

There is more to the story. Why are the Democrats so anxious to vote on their anti-war resolution and be done with it? Because the Republicans have another resolution they want considered. It's called the Gregg resolution and it was introduced by Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. The Gregg resolution would state that the Senate would oppose any reduction in funding for troops in Iraq. Harry Reid called Gregg's resolution a "diversionary tactic" and refused to allow it to come to a vote. So the Republicans have in turned refused to allow the Democrats anti-war resolution to come to a vote. The Democrats are afraid that the Gregg resolution would get more votes than their favored Warner-Levin anti-war version .. and that would make them look bad.

Now once again, and all together ... "there is no liberal bias to in the mainstream media!"

Yeah .. sure."